W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: [Moderator Action] Re: [XHTML 2.0] Only one emphasis tag

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:50:32 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c8010609260650m36620af3u396ea282027d6fcb@mail.gmail.com>
To: "HTML Mailing List" <www-html@w3.org>, www-html-editor@w3.org

On 9/26/06, Jonathan Worent <jworent@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- David Latapie <david@empyree.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Le 25 sept. 06 à 15:00, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> >
> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:54:30 +0200, David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >> -- <em role="0">    default
> > >> -- <em role="+1">   equivalent to em
> > >> -- <em role="+2">   equivalent to strong
> > >> -- <em role="-1">   less important, may be rendered as font-size:smaller
> > >
> > > This proposal doesn't cover nesting.
> >
> > Do you mean emphasis inside an emphasis? I suggest *addition*
>
> That seems like it may be a bit complicated for browsers to implement. Why not just let the values
> speak for themselves.
>
> <em role="+1">This is some what emphasized. <em role="-2">This is fairly strongly de-emphasized<em
> role="+2">This is fairly strongly emphasized</em> Back to fairly strongly de-emphasized</em> Back
> to some what emphasized.</em>
>
> Granted this would not nor should not be considered good practice, but i think that's how nesting
> should be handled
>

It was my understanding that @role was supposed to accept QNames. +1,
-2 don't seem like QNames to me.

Also they should be additive since you may be transcoding the snippet
from somewhere else and therefore if it's additive you won't have to
go in and adjust them.

-- 

Orion Adrian
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:50:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:17:55 GMT